The HIV industry’s circumcision division has put a lot of effort into denying that circumcised men may feel that they can safely engage in ‘risky’ sexual behaviors. But some peer reviewed articles have found that circumcised men feel that, being circumcised, they are not at risk of sexually transmitted HIV, or that their risk really is lower as a result of being circumcised.
The problem is, how do they know how circumcised and uncircumcised men become infected? They may believe the HIV industry’s mantra about almost all HIV transmission being a result of unsafe sex in African countries, but nowhere else. But what if the HIV industry is wrong? They have never checked. They have never traced people’s partners systematically or assessed their non-sexual risks, from unsafe healthcare, traditional and cosmetic practices, they have never investigated infections that were clearly not sexually transmitted.
The industry seems to feel that the end justifies the means because HIV prevalence has turned out to be lower among circumcised men in some circumstances. But if they don’t know how some men, circumcised and uncircumcised, became infected, how do they know that circumcision protects them? If circumcision is associated with higher HIV prevalence in some countries and lower prevalence in other countries, perhaps circumcision status is irrelevant. Perhaps sexual behavior is irrelevant, the HIV industry just doesn’t know.
So millions of men are said to be lining up to be circumcised and they don’t know whether it will really protect them, whether it will increase their risk or whether it will have no effect at all. They also don’t know how safe conditions are in the clinic where the circumcision is carried out.
[For more about the ineffectiveness of Male Circumcision against HIV visit our circumcision related pages.]